patrick.net

Wall Street & Chinese Prospective Buyer Checklist:

1. Is it a house or condo?
2. Go to bank, withdraw cashier's check for 150% of asking price.
3. Deliver check to seller.
4. Repeat for next property

Mortgages tank? No problem. We have a replacement for it - CASH.

Houses have always been bought for cash, except now the banks have cut out the middle-man.

WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!

Say hey! This was in the Wall Street Journal on March 30, 1999. Note "... how much it will buy."

Holy cow/interesting/compelling ...!

And where is it up to date??? Right here ... see the first chart shown in this thread.
Recent Dow day is Monday, April 7, 2014 __ Level is 103.4

WOW! It is hideous that this is hidden! Is there any such "Homes, Inflation Adjusted"? Yes! This was in the New York Times on August 27, 2006:

And up to date (by me) is here:
http://patrick.net/?p=1219038&c=999083#comment-999083

WOW! The UNtrustworthy are certainly in control of what information is apparent to the people!

And "ThePublic Be Suckered"
http://patrick.net/?p=1230886

jazz music says

Call it Crazy, I answered your question, you didn't get that if no one WHO I CAN NAME satisfies your requirement to be represented, then you can seek office yourself.

How realistic is this? Why don't you run for office and change things?

jazz music says

Strategist, I could and may run for office. It's a personal choice I won't make it for you.

I may even vote for you.
The point I am trying to make is you make it sound so simple to create change.
If it was that easy we would not have problems anymore.

Jazz, you are living in dream land.
You can always replace the incumbents, but the new ones are no different.
If you want to solve real problems, you have to get real first.

They'll definitely stop caring when Republicans destroy social security by selling it to wall street.

Few people may be aware that about 50% of outstanding mortgages today are "sub-prime".
As Call it Crazy said, the foreclosure laws vary by state. In some states the lender has to get a judge to agree on throwing out the borrower which can take a long time.
Today lenders aren't interested in anyone who has a credit score below 720.

Call it Crazy says

ust be real nice to live in the house for over 2 years without a mortgage payment....

Part of the shadow inventory that the banks don't want to unload hastily and drive down housing prices like they did back in 2010.

Banks and a lot of buyers are holding on to inventories and not selling as much in hopes that home value trends continue to improve.

US Homes Decreasing In ValueUS real estate info

I think the increasing number of people on drugs is related to their unsatisfaction with their lives and economic situation.
The USA GDP has grown at just 2% for the last 5 years. 92 million people are out of the workforce.
What interests me is how things changed with government intervention relatively recently in our history. Government grew larger, but also grew its police forces and intrusion into our affairs.
I saw a KQED show about Prohibition, and it was amazing to me that the entire USA government functioned with NO income tax before WWI! It was taxes on booze that kept everything going. Imagine that!
It's kind of like New Hampshire; no income tax but all liquor is sold in state owned stores.
Uncle Sam needed an income tax if they were going to have a prohibition. Uncle Sam needed to spend a ton of dough for war so he needed the taxes.
Uncle Sam grew giant law enforcement agencies to enforce Prohibition (a law nobody liked, sound familiar?) FBI, ATF, IRS didn't exist just a few years previously. Of course, organized crime hardly existed before Prohibition either.
Of course, there wasn't a military draft either but they also had that to contend with. The Selective Service Act was passed in 1917. Now there is some government intrusion into your life which could end it.
Later, Uncle Sam got involved in real estate, energy choices, and grew another police force for terrorists rather than just keep them out.
Generally the meddling has had a negative effect on most things it touches.

I just took a glance over at homefacts.com to see 244 houses going into foreclosure in my area. The interesting one is on West Cliff Drive, $900K+ oh oh.

clambo says

Few people may be aware that about 50% of outstanding mortgages today are "sub-prime".

I suspect they aren't aware of it because it isn't true. The peak of sub-prime mortgage lending was between 2004 and 2006 and that was at around 20%.

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

clambo says

Few people may be aware that about 50% of outstanding mortgages today are "sub-prime".

I suspect they aren't aware of it because it isn't true. The peak of sub-prime mortgage lending was between 2004 and 2006 and that was at around 20%.

Source or link??

Try googling sub-prime. What's the first thing you see? Read that article. And why not ask Clambo to substantiate his 50% claim? Or do you just want to accept it because it's what you want to hear?

Call it Crazy says

No, it's just MORE of your baseless comments you make here not routed in any fact or proof and which you never provide links, data or charts to support.... Just another day with you...

My mistake. Type in SUBPRIME MORTGAGE CRISIS. Let us all know what you find. And why is it that you so readily accept a ridiculous claim of 50% without any proof whatsoever and instead happily go off on one of your oh-so-predictable attacks?

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

Call it Crazy says

No, it's just MORE of your baseless comments you make here not routed in any fact or proof and which you never provide links, data or charts to support.... Just another day with you...

My mistake. Type in SUBPRIME MORTGAGE CRISIS. Let us all know what you find. And why is it that you so readily accept a ridiculous claim of 50% without any proof whatsoever and yet happily go off on one of your oh-so-predictable attacks?

See.... You want ME to go prove YOUR comment.... Perfect example how useless you are... Talk about predictable...

YOU go find the links and copy and paste the data that supports YOUR claim... SHOW US YOUR PROOF if you're going to object to a comment...

Talk about TROLLS...

I don't want or need you to prove my comment. I already know the veracity of my comment. I want you to understand how easy it is for you to actually check claimed 'facts'. Unfortunately you are too much of an irritating fact free little shit to want or bother to actually check the facts for yourself to see how fucking wrong you are (as usual). But hey, as you are such a lazy shit, try clicking on this link and read the second paragraph. You can also try thinking how ridiculous a claim 50% was and why it was you so readily accepted such a highly dubious claim:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis

Bigsby says

I don't want or need you to prove my comment. I already know the veracity of my comment. I want you to understand how easy it is for you to actually check claimed 'facts'.

You guys are both fact free idiots. The peak was in 2008. There were 3 million out of 50 million sub prime mortgages or 6%. I haven't seen any more recent charts but with all the foreclosures that number must have dropped a lot.

He's got you there CIC, you can't beat the veracity of Wikipedia, I mean it has graphs...

indigenous says

He's got you there CIC, you can't beat the veracity of Wikipedia, I mean it has graphs...

I don't use wiki for research, just casual lookups, the graph was from the carpe-diem-housing website.

@Bob

I don't get your point. 20% of mortgages were sub-prime between 2004-2006 as I stated (a figure also reported by Forbes among others). How does your post counter that?

indigenous says

He's got you there CIC, you can't beat the veracity of Wikipedia, I mean it has graphs...

Wikipedia is simply an outlet for individuals to report other people's facts. Check Forbes or any other site you care to research sub-prime rates on. If you want to question that figure, YOU post up something that counters it.

Call it Crazy says

indigenous says

He's got you there CIC, you can't beat the veracity of Wikipedia, I mean it has graphs...

Ha Ha Ha.... I was going to respond the same way, but it wasn't worth the effort for a Troll like him....

Well done. So you disagree with what I referenced and what I could reference on many other sites? Please go ahead and demonstrate the accuracy of the 50% claim and the inaccuracy of what I said seeing as you are such a lover of supported claims.

Bigsby says

I don't get your point. 20% of mortgages were sub-prime between 2004-2006 as I stated (a figure also reported by Forbes among others). How does your post counter that?

You are confusing originations in 2004-6 with total mortgages. Clambo said 50% of mortgages were sub prime. You said 20% of mortgages were sub prime. Neither is true, sub prime is specific legal defintion.

bob2356 says

Bigsby says

I don't get your point. 20% of mortgages were sub-prime between 2004-2006 as I stated (a figure also reported by Forbes among others). How does your post counter that?

You are confusing originations in 2004-6 with total mortgages. Clambo said 50% of mortgages were sub prime. You said 20% of mortgages were sub prime. Neither is true, sub prime is specific legal defintion.

I wasn't confusing it with total mortgages. Look at what I posted up. I referenced a report that the peak in sub-prime lending was 2004-2006 at 20%. Nowhere did I say this was the overall rate. If the peak of subprime was 20% then and the usual figure was more like 8%, then how could total outstanding mortgages be almost 50% sub-prime? That was the point I was making.

Bigsby says

I wasn't confusing it with total mortgages. If the peak of subprime was 20% and the usual figure was more like 6%, then how could total outstanding mortgages be almost 50% sub-prime? That was the point I was making.

Yes you are. New mortgages written in 2004-2006 were 20% sub prime. The entire mortgage pool (new mortgages plus existing mortgages) in that time frame (or at least in 2008) consisted of 6% mortgages that were sub prime, 94% that were prime. The percentage of sub prime had to have dropped since so many were foreclosed, but no one has charted it that I can find. Obviously 50% is absurd in any time frame.

bob2356 says

Yes you are. New mortgages written in 2004-2006 were 20% sub prime. The entire mortgage pool (new mortgages plus existing mortgages) in that time frame (or at least in 2008) consisted of 6% mortgages that were sub prime, 94% that were prime. The percentage of sub prime had to have dropped since so many were foreclosed, but no one has charted it that I can find. Obviously 50% is absurd in any time frame.

No, I'm not. The only figure I mentioned was the 20% rate between 2004 and 2006. Where did I say that was the total? I made zero claims about what the actual total was, simply that if the peak sub-prime lending was 20% during those years, then how could 50% be an accurate figure?

Bigsby says

No, I'm not. Look again at what I said. The only figure I mentioned was the 20% rate between 2004 and 2006. Where did I say that was the total?

Where did you, clambo, or cic say it was originations? If that's what you meant then that's what you should have said.

bob2356 says

Bigsby says

No, I'm not. Look again at what I said. The only figure I mentioned was the 20% rate between 2004 and 2006. Where did I say that was the total?

Where did you, clambo, or cic say it was originations? If that's what you meant then that's what you should have said.

I don't get what you are arguing. Clambo said that nearly 50% of TOTAL outstanding mortgages were sub-prime. I simply referenced an article that stated peak sub-prime lending occurred between 2004 and 2006 at a rate of 20%. The obvious conclusion from that is that Clambo's remark is hugely off the mark. I don't see why that needed any further clarification on my part.

Bigsby says

Wikipedia is simply an outlet for individuals to report other people's facts. Check Forbes or any other site you care to research sub-prime rates on. If you want to question that figure, YOU post up something that counters it.

I have read a couple of books about it. The main point you mutts miss is that if there was no bailout there would have been NO PROBLEM.

indigenous says

Bigsby says

Wikipedia is simply an outlet for individuals to report other people's facts. Check Forbes or any other site you care to research sub-prime rates on. If you want to question that figure, YOU post up something that counters it.

I have read a couple of books about it. The main point you mutts miss is that if there was no bailout there would have been NO PROBLEM.

The point YOU are missing is that has nothing to do with what the back and forth was about. The issue was the accuracy of that 50% claim. And the bailout wasn't the source of the problem, was it?

Bigsby says

The point YOU are missing is that has nothing to do with what the back and forth was about. The issue was the accuracy of that 50% claim. And the bailout wasn't the source of the problem, was it?

Ok but you're still a mutt, and the over arching issue is the bailouts

indigenous says

Bigsby says

The point YOU are missing is that has nothing to do with what the back and forth was about. The issue was the accuracy of that 50% claim. And the bailout wasn't the source of the problem, was it?

Ok but you're still a mutt, and the over arching issue is the bailouts

Thanks. And why exactly are the bailouts the over-arching issue? What about the lack of oversight of the financial systems that allowed it all to happen in the first place and that will no doubt allow it to happen again seeing as little has really changed.

Bigsby says

And why exactly are the bailouts the over-arching issue? What about the lack of oversight of the financial systems that allowed it all to happen in the first place and that will no doubt allow it to happen again seeing as little has really changed.

If you understand no explanation is necessary, if you don't no explanation is possible.

indigenous says

Bigsby says

And why exactly are the bailouts the over-arching issue? What about the lack of oversight of the financial systems that allowed it all to happen in the first place and that will no doubt allow it to happen again seeing as little has really changed.

If you understand no explanation is necessary, if you don't no explanation is possible.

I take it then that you don't understand seeing as you appear to be incapable of giving an explanation. Oh, my mistake, you read a couple of books. Congrats.

Bigsby says

I take it then that you don't understand what you are talking about seeing as you appear to be incapable of giving an explanation.

Of course you do

indigenous says

Bigsby says

I take it then that you don't understand what you are talking about seeing as you appear to be incapable of giving an explanation.

Of course you do

You and CiC are perfect for each other.

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

Clambo said that nearly 50% of TOTAL outstanding mortgages were sub-prime.

See the operative words there: TOTAL outstanding

Bigsby says

I simply referenced an article that stated peak sub-prime lending occurred between 2004 and 2006 at a rate of 20%

But instead, your referencing a 3 year time frame...

Hint: TOTAL doesn't equal a time period 2004 to 2006..

But, if as you claim, there was a rate of 20% over three year, why wouldn't the TOTAL over many years not be larger of the current outstanding loans??? Weren't there sub-prime loans written BEFORE 2004 and after 2006???

What type of loans were written in the 2006 to 2008 time period right before the bubble popped??

Apples and Oranges.....

Is that supposed to be a joke, or are you really that stupid?

Call it Crazy says

Bigsby says

indigenous says

Bigsby says

I take it then that you don't understand what you are talking about seeing as you appear to be incapable of giving an explanation.

Of course you do

You and CiC are perfect for each other.

Yep, at least WE understand what we write...

You may understand what you write, but you seem to singularly fail to understand that it is invariably total bullshit.

Call it Crazy says

But, if as you claim, there was a rate of 20% over three year, why wouldn't the TOTAL over many years not be larger of the current outstanding loans??? Weren't there sub-prime loans written BEFORE 2004 and after 2006???

Because the peak was 20% and most years have been far, far lower (8% according to the article). How would that then translate to 50% of outstanding loans? If it does, YOU prove it. I've given links to show the rate of sub-prime lending, a figure that raises serious questions about the veracity of Clambo's claims. Feel free to post up actual evidence that counters that.